On a recent morning, Patricia Stoneking aimed her Glock model 23, .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun at a paper target inside the Bullet Hole shooting range in Overland Park, Kansas."That's how you do it," she said as she wound the maimed figure (two holes inches from its center), back into the firing area.

To Stoneking, who runs the Bullet Hole, owning firearms is not just a right but and obligation."People need to arm themselves," she told a reporter, and not just for protection against criminals. Stoneking, who also heads the Kansas State Rifle Association (KSRA), believes Americans must bear arms for protections against the government. "We have to put limits on our government, and that's what the [right to bear arms] does."

Stoneking and the KSRA are now supporting a ballot initiative that would give state residents a perpetual right to bear arms in the Kansas Constitution. It's a measure Stoneking says is absolutely necessary. Gun control advocates are calling it absolutely redundant. "The U.S. Supreme Court," said an exasperated Paul Helmke, "in two different decisions over the last two years has determined that the 2nd amendment is applicable to the states."

Helmke is from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and he says Stoneking already has a national constitutional right to bear arms that would trump anything an individual state could do. "This is completely ridiculous and unnecessary," he said.

Helmke also says he gets "nervous" when gun advocates "talk about taking up arms against the government." He explained, "When someone thinks that they, on their own, can decide that somehow the government is tyrannical and that they can start a revolution, start a civil war, then we're not following the process that our founding fathers set up."

Stoneking disagrees claiming that's exactly what the founding fathers intended. "They knew government could become tyrannical," she said. "We have the right to defend ourselves from a rogue government."

Kansas currently has a clause in their Constitution that has been interpreted as a collective right, many other States have better worded/interpreted rights:

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

[Interpreted as collective right only, City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905), adhered to by City of Junction City v. Lee, 532 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1975). But see City of Junction City v. Mevis, 601 P.2d 1145, 1151 (Kan. 1979) (striking down a gun control law, challenged by an individual citizen, on the grounds that it was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” and thus implicitly concluding that the right to bear arms did indeed belong to individual citizens).]

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher

"I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody." - Barry Obama

Originally Posted By tboesche:
Helmke also says he gets "nervous" when gun advocates "talk about taking up arms against the government." He explained, "When someone thinks that they, on their own, can decide that somehow the government is tyrannical and that they can start a revolution, start a civil war, then we're not following the process that our founding fathers set up."

So all you need are two people to decide its a tyranny then?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Among all the secret defenses the body uses to show courage, the true secret is the mind

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense
and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to
liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict
subordination to the civil power.

Proposed language of Kansas BoR Sect 4:

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the
defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and
recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.

Originally Posted By offshorebear:That sounds weak. It needs a shall not be questioned clause.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

"The state and its political subdivisions shall make no law infringing a person's right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, or for any other lawful purpose."

"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." - Dogbert

Originally Posted By offshorebear:That sounds weak. It needs a shall not be questioned clause.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

"The state and its political subdivisions shall make no law infringing a person's right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, or for any other lawful purpose."

Sounds better. So no permit for cc?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

"Sorry I'm late. I had to stop by the wax museum again and give the finger to FDR." - Cotton Hill